New Study Assesses AMO Contribution to Arctic Sea Ice Decline

[WeatherRusty]

Using this method we estimate that, for September sea ice, a decline of 0.5–3.1%/decade out of the total observed decline of 10.1%/decade for 1979–2010 is related to the AMO. Over the longer observational period (1953–2010) this contribution is 0.2–0.5%/decade out of the 6.9%/decade trend

Sources of multi-decadal variability in Arctic sea ice extent

Less than 1/3 of decline due to AMO between 1979-2010

[The_Global_Warmer]

Could be less than 1/10th or 1/15th.

thanks for posting this, it won't stop the AMO is to blame posts. But it was a nice read.

[toronto blizzard]

You are such a joke frivolous. Where the hell do you get 1/10 and 1/15 from ?

[ben4vols]

I may be mistaken but I think Don already posted this study.

[Ellinwood]

You are such a joke frivolous. Where the hell do you get 1/10 and 1/15 from ?

Division.

A total sea ice decline of 10.1%/decade divided by the range of the AMO's effect of 0.5-3.1% yields a fractional range of 1/20.2 to 1/3.26, and since the fractions 1/10 and 1/15 fall within that range, they are valid options.

[toronto blizzard]

I have absolutely no idea why you guys disregard all the natural causes of Global Warming and just state the man made causes. Talk about a biased forum.

[The_Global_Warmer]

You are such a joke frivolous. Where the hell do you get 1/10 and 1/15 from ?

Yeah, your right.

we attribute 0.5–3.1%/decade of the 10.1%/decade decline in September SIE (1979–2010) to AMO driven variability.

What is 3.1% of 10.1% = 30.6%

What is 0.5% of 10.1% = 0.495%

So in total they attribute 5% to 30% of the Sea Ice Minimum to the AM0. Which has a middle ground of 17.5% which is roughly 1/6th for the AMO responsibility. 10% would be 1/10th. 5% would be 1/20. Which is the lowest they attribute, 1/3 is the highest. So the fair middle ground would be 1/6th. That would roughly mean the AMO is the reason we are around 4,500,000km2 the last 5 years instead of 4,850,000km2. If the AMO is 1/3rd responsible then it would be looking at 5,350,00km2 o so. If the AMO was 5%, it's truly irrelevant. Even 1/6 makes it pretty irrelevant.

But thanks for taking the time to read the article before trashing me. I also note I using less reliable single day extent extraps, not monthly. Regardless the point stands of sturdy grounds.

[The_Global_Warmer]

This study projects my common sense projection on it. I would pretty much say from year to year that kind of variability fits. That would imply the 1/6(estimate) or 17.5%(actual) is the max in my eyes.

[TerryM]

Friv

Check your mail

[WeatherRusty]

I have absolutely no idea why you guys disregard all the natural causes of Global Warming and just state the man made causes. Talk about a biased forum.

This is an attribution study. It proposes that no more than 1/3 of the sea ice loss per decade since 1979 can be attributed to the AMO.

I posted it several days ago in response to the many skeptical arguments which suppose the AMO to be a huge cause of regional climate change in the north Atlantic and the Arctic. I would have thought there would have been a response from the skeptics here, but it took several days for anyone to post a reply.

No one in the science disregards the natural causes of global warming, the point is that the natural causes of climate change are being overwhelmed by the man made causes. It's not undue bias, it's a dealing with what attribution studies such as this one imply.

[gracetoyou]

This is an attribution study. It proposes that no more than 1/3 of the sea ice loss per decade since 1979 can be attributed to the AMO.

I posted it several days ago in response to the many skeptical arguments which suppose the AMO to be a huge cause of regional climate change in the north Atlantic and the Arctic. I would have thought there would have been a response from the skeptics here, but it took several days for anyone to post a reply.

No one in the science disregards the natural causes of global warming, the point is that the natural causes of climate change are being overwhelmed by the man made causes. It's not undue bias, it's a dealing with what attribution studies such as this one imply.

COMPLETE BS!!! I have yet to have anyone explain why global temps are not still skyrocketing despite C02 levels being higher than ever before. If C02 has been the major player since 1978 then what the heck has happened since 1998? There's even been a peer reviewed study that is still in the journals that documents the leveling off of temps from 1998-2008. The study blamed it on increase of aerosols in China (which I do not believe). Global temps have slightly dropped since then. If C02 has taken control then explain that. No bullcrap easy answers either.

I'm not a denier that greenhouse gases can effect climate but there's no way it's happening yet. The data suggest otherwise except for the folks that are seek to link every movement on planet earth to AGW. It just really makes me doubt even more so, some of the studies that I read about.

As far as AMO goes, I do believe it has contributed to the melt on the east end of the artic. +PDO was responsible for the west side but have you noticed how the west side of the artic recovered more this year than in recent years & we're only 5 years into this -PDO cycle. I think it will continue to recover each winter & melt slower in the summer over a longer period of time. When the AMO goes negative I think the same thing will happen on the east side. Are there other factors involved? Absolutely, but I certainly do not believe we know what they are. But you cannot just link it to greenhouse gases.

[WeatherRusty]

COMPLETE BS!!! I have yet to have anyone explain why global temps are not still skyrocketing despite C02 levels being higher than ever before. If C02 has been the major player since 1978 then what the heck has happened since 1998? There's even been a peer reviewed study that is still in the journals that documents the leveling off of temps from 1998-2008. The study blamed it on increase of aerosols in China (which I do not believe). Global temps have slightly dropped since then. If C02 has taken control then explain that. No bullcrap easy answers either.

I'm not a denier that greenhouse gases can effect climate but there's no way it's happening yet. The data suggest otherwise except for the folks that are seek to link every movement on planet earth to AGW. It just really makes me doubt even more so, some of the studies that I read about.

As far as AMO goes, I do believe it has contributed to the melt on the east end of the artic. +PDO was responsible for the west side but have you noticed how the west side of the artic recovered more this year than in recent years & we're only 5 years into this -PDO cycle. I think it will continue to recover each winter & melt slower in the summer over a longer period of time. When the AMO goes negative I think the same thing will happen on the east side. Are there other factors involved? Absolutely, but I certainly do not believe we know what they are. But you cannot just link it to greenhouse gases.

solar variability

PDO, AMO etc

ENSO

aerosols (random?)

etc.

On a time scale of a decade or so these factors can combine to influence temperature as much or more than greenhouse gas forcing. But due to their limited range of strength and their temporal nature, they can not persist in the longer term...Greenhouse gas forcing is moving in only one direction and will be persistent for centuries.

We should expect variation in the rate of warming as the many factors move in and out of phase with each other.

[The_Global_Warmer]

COMPLETE BS!!! I have yet to have anyone explain why global temps are not still skyrocketing despite C02 levels being higher than ever before. If C02 has been the major player since 1978 then what the heck has happened since 1998? There's even been a peer reviewed study that is still in the journals that documents the leveling off of temps from 1998-2008. The study blamed it on increase of aerosols in China (which I do not believe). Global temps have slightly dropped since then. If C02 has taken control then explain that. No bullcrap easy answers either.

I'm not a denier that greenhouse gases can effect climate but there's no way it's happening yet. The data suggest otherwise except for the folks that are seek to link every movement on planet earth to AGW. It just really makes me doubt even more so, some of the studies that I read about.

As far as AMO goes, I do believe it has contributed to the melt on the east end of the artic. +PDO was responsible for the west side but have you noticed how the west side of the artic recovered more this year than in recent years & we're only 5 years into this -PDO cycle. I think it will continue to recover each winter & melt slower in the summer over a longer period of time. When the AMO goes negative I think the same thing will happen on the east side. Are there other factors involved? Absolutely, but I certainly do not believe we know what they are. But you cannot just link it to greenhouse gases.

You think? But you think against the data. Most of your post above has nothing to do with how they come to this conclusion. This conclusion has little to do with any of the other stuff you said.

the Pacific side ice is either gone or in complete shambles. Are you suggesting the PDO effects ice up to 80N become thicker and melt out slower? Under far less than ideal conditions outside the Beaufort the Chukchi and ESAS are in shambles or gone as well.

There is no sign of recovering. Recovering would be seen in September not April. We don't know what Ice and snow albedo feedback is? Come on man, or GHG forcing. We don't observe the added solar insolation and subsequent ice melt and follow how much heat the ocean stores that doesn't get sucked into ice melt.

I can't wait for September to update this, there will be little if any ice left passed that red line in a month. A complete pacific side melt is not any sort of recovery.

The Chuckchi received gifts from the Beaufort Sea. ESAS received gifts not as many from the Laptev. Some of the Chuckchi ice near the basin saw poleward compaction. But a lot of the ice out there is from the Pacific side. It compacted on itself and is almost gone.

You give no reasoning for saying the PDO is causing a recovery of any sorts. Nor give any reason there analysis is off.

[gracetoyou]

You think? But you think against the data. Most of your post above has nothing to do with how they come to this conclusion. This conclusion has little to do with any of the other stuff you said.

the Pacific side ice is either gone or in complete shambles. Are you suggesting the PDO effects ice up to 80N become thicker and melt out slower? Under far less than ideal conditions outside the Beaufort the Chukchi and ESAS are in shambles or gone as well.

There is no sign of recovering. Recovering would be seen in September not April. We don't know what Ice and snow albedo feedback is? Come on man, or GHG forcing. We don't observe the added solar insolation and subsequent ice melt and follow how much heat the ocean stores that doesn't get sucked into ice melt.

I can't wait for September to update this, there will be little if any ice left passed that red line in a month. A complete pacific side melt is not any sort of recovery.

The Chuckchi received gifts from the Beaufort Sea. ESAS received gifts not as many from the Laptev. Some of the Chuckchi ice near the basin saw poleward compaction. But a lot of the ice out there is from the Pacific side. It compacted on itself and is almost gone.

You give no reasoning for saying the PDO is causing a recovery of any sorts. Nor give any reason there analysis is off.

Nothing but pure observation & logic from my standpoint which may be flawed; however, I do think the recovery I was referring to is a very slow process. I think last winter record Bering sea ice & the satellite photo show the baby steps I was referring to. Compare the satellite photo you showed with photos from the same time period in the last 10 years. Baby steps...more will be left each year after the summer melt over the next 20 years is what I predict (no study to support this) It will be a very slow process. I'm not saying it will be like the 1970's.

We will see if the same slow process begins on the west side when the AMO flips cycles. If it does it only makes sense that there will be more ice in the artic & slower melts.

[ben4vols]

Nothing but pure observation & logic from my standpoint which may be flawed; however, I do think the recovery I was referring to is a very slow process. I think last winter record Bering sea ice & the satellite photo show the baby steps I was referring to. Compare the satellite photo you showed with photos from the same time period in the last 10 years. Baby steps...more will be left each year after the summer melt over the next 20 years is what I predict (no study to support this) It will be a very slow process. I'm not saying it will be like the 1970's.

We will see if the same slow process begins on the west side when the AMO flips cycles. If it does it only makes sense that there will be more ice in the artic & slower melts.

The ice is trying to/starting to recover. Record ice in the Bering. Average ice this late winter overall. The PDO has already started the process but until the AMO turns it will be, as you say, baby steps.

[The_Global_Warmer]

So the paper is wrong, but you have nothing proving why?

And you know the PDO is already working on the ice because of one winter?

But all of that ice is gone and the sea ice is plummeting towards new record lows.

So let's ignore mainstream science, ignore this group, even though it's a regression analysis with the data already have happened in real life been recorded now analyzed to come up with the breakdowns.

[donsutherland1]

I have yet to have anyone explain why global temps are not still skyrocketing despite C02 levels being higher than ever before. If C02 has been the major player since 1978 then what the heck has happened since 1998?

A steady rise in global temperatures is continuing.

http://iopscience.iop.org/1748-9326/6/4/044022/pdf/1748-9326_6_4_044022.pdf

And 30-year moving averages (CO2 and global temperatures):

Finally, the substantial influence of CO2 as a forcing was demonstrated during the recent deep and prolonged solar minimum. During that solar minimum, the earth maintained a large energy imbalance. All major temperature datasets--GISS, HadCRUT, and NCDC--saw monthly and annual temperatures remain above their climate baselines.

[ben4vols]

So the paper is wrong, but you have nothing proving why?

And you know the PDO is already working on the ice because of one winter?

But all of that ice is gone and the sea ice is plummeting towards new record lows.

So let's ignore mainstream science, ignore this group, even though it's a regression analysis with the data already have happened in real life been recorded now analyzed to come up with the breakdowns.

I'm not the one ignoring stuff. Also in one of the studies I posted about Atlantic Water impact on the Arctic, the author mentioned that ice was trying to being to add back but couldn't because the new ice was too thin to make it through summer. Not a surprise considering AMO but small steps are being taken since the PDO flipped.

[skierinvermont]

You are such a joke frivolous. Where the hell do you get 1/10 and 1/15 from ?

Division.

[The_Global_Warmer]

I'm not the one ignoring stuff. Also in one of the studies I posted about Atlantic Water impact on the Arctic, the author mentioned that ice was trying to being to add back but couldn't because the new ice was too thin to make it through summer. Not a surprise considering AMO but small steps are being taken since the PDO flipped.

Small steps?

like what?

It's August 6th and the entire Pacific side of the arctic is about to melt out.

How is the PDO which has been negative 63% of the time since 1998 helping out?

[ben4vols]

It's August 6th and the entire Pacific side of the arctic is about to melt out.

How is the PDO which has been negative 63% of the time since 1998 helping out?

Is it really about to melt out or has it been compacted by an intense low?

It has been explained to you before why would I explain it to you again? We aren't going to agree. I'll let you enjoy the last few days of melt season before the sun disappears.

[forkyfork]

Is it really about to melt out or has it been compacted by an intense low?

It has been explained to you before why would I explain it to you again? We aren't going to agree. I'll let you enjoy the last few days of melt season before the sun disappears.

it melted out

[Jonger]

it melted out

Its done it before and it will do it again. The whole earth will plunge into an ice age and cover half of north America with 2 miles of ice. Exciting stuff.

[PhillipS]

Its done it before and it will do it again. The whole earth will plunge into an ice age and cover half of north America with 2 miles of ice. Exciting stuff.

Do you have a predicted date for that - or is it all just snark (the refuge of those without any science to support them)?

[Sundog]

Its done it before and it will do it again. The whole earth will plunge into an ice age and cover half of north America with 2 miles of ice. Exciting stuff.

You don't say? Tell us more. Should we also not worry about sea level rise since it was once higher than today? Or how about pelted by comets and meteors. You know once upon a time they used to pelt the Earth all the time. You know what else was different? There was almost no oxygen on the Earth in the past. If we were faced with depleting oxygen levels, would you strut yourself around proclaiming that the Earth once had no oxygen?

[Jonger]

You don't say? Tell us more. Should we also not worry about sea level rise since it was once higher than today? Or how about pelted by comets and meteors. You know once upon a time they used to pelt the Earth all the time. You know what else was different? There was almost no oxygen on the Earth in the past. If we were faced with depleting oxygen levels, would you strut yourself around proclaiming that the Earth once had no oxygen?

Sea level rise? Assuming we continue warming at the present rate, sea level will rise 1M by 2100. Also, most hydrocarbons will either be consumed or nearly so. We probably have the ability to reach about 550ppm CO2, before it increasingly becomes difficult to find any hydro-carbons to consume.

550ppm is without any sequestration of CO2, which development and implementation has already begun.

Let's hope man can engineer out the excess CO2 if need be. As for the other points, not worth addressing.

[Jonger]

Do you have a predicted date for that - or is it all just snark (the refuge of those without any science to support them)?

I'm just basing that statement on historical fact. I'm not expecting that for at least a few thousand years.

Nice lagging CO2.

[PhillipS]

I'm just basing that statement on historical fact. I'm not expecting that for at least a few thousand years.

Nice lagging CO2.

Interesting, too, that the chart truncates CO2 to about 283 ppm instead of today's 393 ppm. Of course, that would show that for the modern temperature increase CO2 is leading, not lagging.

[Jonger]

Interesting, too, that the chart truncates CO2 to about 283 ppm instead of today's 393 ppm. Of course, that would show that for the modern temperature increase CO2 is leading, not lagging.

I know we are at 394ppm, I just linked that from the Wikipedia article on "Ice Age".

[Vergent]

You think? But you think against the data. Most of your post above has nothing to do with how they come to this conclusion. This conclusion has little to do with any of the other stuff you said.

I can't wait for September to update this, there will be little if any ice left passed that red line in a month. A complete pacific side melt is not any sort of recovery.

What a pure, accurate, specific prediction this was. Nice job Friv!